In 1996, a newly Republican Congress ended welfare as we knew it. In doing so, the Republicans improved a New Deal program that had become archaic, counterproductive, and dependency-forming. They also improved the public's image of Republicans. By defining the GOP as a party of ideas rather than interests, they burnished its reformist credentials and helped propel George W. Bush to the White House.

Fast-forward a decade. Once again, Congress has changed hands. Once again, the new majority needs to signal that it stands for more than business as usual. Once again, an archaic, counterproductive, and dependency-inducing New Deal program is ripe for reform. Once again, a consensus has emerged on the general direction for reform. This time, the opportunity is to end farm welfare as we know it.

In 2007, agricultural subsidies come up for reauthorization. Numbingly complex and arcane, farm bills have traditionally been of interest mainly to the agriculture lobbyists and farm-region legislators who wrote them in the Capitol's back rooms. In 2007, however, all Democratic lawmakers, not just the farm groupies, would be well advised to pay attention.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., is certainly taking notice. Though not a member of the Agriculture Committee, "I've been preparing for this reauthorization, and I plan to be actively involved," he said in a recent interview. "It's critically important to my state, which is shortchanged by the farm bill." His district has fruit, wine, nurseries, and "the largest Christmas tree farm in America"—all outside the charmed circle of federal farm subsidies.

Blumenauer's political calculus, however, is national as well as local. "I think the farm bill is perhaps the best example of federal policy frozen in time, in a mixture of inertia, political considerations, and complexity," he says. "It currently is not serving most states, it's not serving most farmers, it's not fiscally conservative." He sees agriculture as one of only two ripe opportunities for Democrats to prove themselves as reformers in 2007 (the other being energy). "We have a chance," he says, "to send the message that we're serious about making government work right."

No one, not anyone, would sit down today and design the current farm programs. Although much revised in their details, they remain a paradigm of New Deal heavy-handedness, distorting markets in a way that accomplishes little at high cost. Subsidies are absurdly lopsided: 93 percent of payments flow to five crops (corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat), which together account for only a fifth of U.S. farm receipts. Meanwhile, 60 percent of farmers and ranchers get nothing.

Payments flow disproportionately to large farms and wealthy farmers. Much of the subsidies' value is sopped up by higher land prices, often benefiting absentee landowners instead of working farmers. Worst of all, the steepest price is paid by desperately poor farmers in the developing world, who must compete not only with American farmers but also with the U.S. Treasury.

Expert opinion has in recent years converged on an alternative approach, called revenue assurance. If the goal is to give farmers more income stability than volatile agricultural markets provide—and that, these days, is the only goal that most people agree has a public-policy justification—then revenue assurance is, in principle, a fairer and more efficient way to do it. The government and subsidized private insurers could indemnify farmers against sharp declines in earnings; government-supported "farm savings accounts" could provide further protection.

As it happens, such an approach fits neatly into a framework that is emerging as the Democrats' alternative to old-fashioned government handouts. The government and the private sector have steadily shifted economic risk "onto the fragile balance sheets of American families," Jacob S. Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University, argues in his recent book The Great Risk Shift. Moreover, he says, "the job market has grown markedly more uncertain and unstable." Hacker and other Democratic-aligned thinkers argue for a new focus on wage insurance and other methods of reducing income volatility.

Just being not-Republicans worked for the Democrats in 2006, but it is unlikely to suffice in 2008. Democrats need a plausible alternative to the Republican model of increasing personal choice—but also increasing personal risk—by partially privatizing Social Security and Medicare. The farm bill thus comes along at a providential moment, offering a test bed and showcase for a big idea at a time when the party sorely needs one.

None of that would matter if reform were politically impossible, but it is not. Difficult, yes. "If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the next one would look like the present farm bill with a bit of fiddling," says Robert L. Thompson, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) and a former Agriculture Department chief economist. "But the probabilities are just a little bit higher than normal that we'll get more-fundamental change."

Many farmers—not most, but more than previously—are supporting change. The corn lobby is talking up revenue assurance. Growers of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other nonsubsidy crops, who mainly sat out the writing of earlier farm bills, have organized to demand fairer treatment in the new one. "That's a very significant new development," says Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, which advocates reform.

Environmentalists, anti-hunger groups, and international development organizations are also lobbying for change. Environmentalists want a shift toward conservation, and some, such as the American Farmland Trust, call for replacing crop-specific subsidies with revenue insurance. Bread for the World (motto: "Seeking Justice. Ending Hunger") likewise calls for a subsidy phaseout and an emphasis on mitigating farmers' financial risk. Development organizations want to curtail subsidies that hammer poor farmers in developing countries.

Something else: "Latino groups are rallying around the farm bill," says Rick Swartz, a Washington consultant who is organizing an alliance of reformist groups. Latinos, many of them former field laborers, are the fastest-growing demographic cohort of new farmers, Swartz says, and most of them grow unsubsidized specialty crops. In September, the National Latino Congreso passed a resolution calling for reform—a first, Swartz says.

Democrats will not have failed to notice that many of these change advocates are core Democratic constituencies.

Nor, probably, will they have missed that today's subsidies flow in vast disproportion to deep-red Republican states in the South and Midwest. Hmm. Then there is the fact that the farm bill is must-pass legislation. Congress will have to send something to President Bush, and he will have to sign something. That is an advantage that welfare reformers never had.

To realize all of this reform potential, two things must happen. First, the Democrats' leaders must seize the issue from the back-room farm interests, elevate it to national prominence, and demand a transformational farm bill instead of a transactional one. Second, Bush must join the effort, as President Clinton did with welfare. One party can't overhaul a bipartisan program, and only Bush's threat to veto a business-as-usual bill can prevent backsliding.

Here again, the stars seem aligned.

In 2002, Bush called for a reformist farm bill but retreated under pressure from Republican aggies. "Now the president is in a different situation," Blumenauer says. "It's all about legacy now." Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is energetically promoting reform, calling the 2007 farm bill "a great opportunity ... to refresh the way we view agricultural support and farm policy," as he put it in a November speech. "His speeches," says Cook, the environmentalist, "are music to a lot of our ears."

Bush, no less than congressional Democrats, needs to show he can be a change agent. "If the president, in his State of the Union, would lay down a marker that he won't accept a [conventional] farm bill," Blumenauer contends, "he could help the reformers in Congress, and it could be a significant achievement as they leave the stage."

A pipe dream? Maybe. Ending farm subsidies as we know them would be a minor miracle. But then, the 1986 tax reform and the 1996 welfare reform acts were minor miracles, and both happened under divided government and amid fierce partisanship. "Once the politics get aligned on this," Blumenauer says, "I think real progress could happen quickly." The biggest unknown is whether the Democrats will have the vision to view the farm bill as seed corn instead of pork.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.